Wow must say I'm a little surprised at how much behind the scenes background information has been pouring out of me the last couple of days. Most of fairly important to deeper understanding of the TL too it seems, explaining what's going on beyond the simple events. I think it's all too easy to miss small seemingly unimportant details or misinterpret what's actually going on if you only have the raw events. One of the big disadvantages of my preference for timeline approach to writing alternate history over the storytelling approach. I really need to organise all these into one or probably several Miss C's Design Notes posts. Might be lazy and just do a design notes consisting entirely of links to these lol. However on to replying
Unlike virtually all other weapons of war, which I regard as no more or less 'special' or 'different' than any other,, I do see nukes as different. Their destructive power is so many orders of magnitude above others and the potential consequence of their use so terrifying, I fail to see how anyone could not. This combined with while my opinion of bureaucrats, civil servants and politicians (I find the lines between the tree rather blurry) is perhaps a little lower than it should be, I believe the overwhelming majority of them are basically sane and do love their children. I think people who would not pause for some significant amount of time and think vary carefully before using or in anyway participating in the use of nuclear weapons are extremely rare, if not vanishingly so, I certainly hope they are. Therefore, presenting any kind of widespread attitude holding nuclear of nuclear weapons are just another weapon is not something normally see as readily believable.
However ITTL there is a factor I don't think is common. It might take some explaining. When I was young (teens and early 20s), i like many in the west was bombarded by the popular view the Soviet military establishment had little regard for human life due to the doctrine they used. Their supposed lack of concern about casualties among civilians or their own troops was most often brought up. But their willingness to use chemical weapons, saturation artillery bombardments, favouring quantity over quality we all also presented as more proof. But as I read about about the Second World War on the Eastern Front, the Soviet's Great Patriotic War, this somehow didn't make sense to me. The Soviet officers who came up with their doctrine were all junior officer during it. It just didn't seem reasonable their experiences in that war would leave them numb to human suffering, a few certainly, trauma can do that, but the vast majority of them? No that didn't seem realistic.
So I read everything I could find on why they followed this doctrine. I even managed to find a few unclassified writings by those who came up with their methods. What I found was Soviet doctrine was in fact motived by the exact opposite of the popular belief. They used those methods to minimise casualties, on both sides to a degree actually. Soviet experience on the Eastern Front was their own casualties were lowest when pursuing a retreating enemy and highest when assaulting a prepared position. So their aim was to move to the first situation as rapidly as possible. Therefore they were willing to press attacks far more vigorously and with far more violence (the don't don't tap it tump it, and keep thumping it with every thing available approach) than many western armies. And furthermore, the longer combat continued, the higher casualties on both sides and among civilians. In fact one comment from a Soviet officer the best way to reduce civilian casualties was to force the enemy to retreat as soon as possible, moving the battle away from the civilians. When I read this it dawned on me, this was all really just common sense.
How is this relevant to my TL? When nukes come along, the officers who formulate doctrine for their use will have been junior officers during the Great War and chaos of revolutions and civil wars which follow it for many years. While I am only going off the Third Iteration, this iteration, while having many differences, has consistently followed a similar path. And many of the differences between the two iterations thus far have increased the pace and intensity of events. The Great War and its aftermath were noticeably longer and more brutal than the OTL. I already know the Great War is going to occur ITTL and even when it will start to within roughly nine months. What indications I have point to it being at least as long and brutal as the previous iteration. In fact there are a fair number of indications it could be even longer and more brutal. Under those circumstance,
Under those circumstances I could definitely see a elements of that Soviet mindset arising, potentially leading somewhat more relaxed attitude to the use of nuclear weapons than the OTL emerging, especially in the early days of their availability, before their full power is properly understood or arsenals have grown to the point where global apocalypse and mutually assured destruction become a possibility. I do know it very likely chemical weapons will be far more widely used than the OTL. Not because of how I view them, because of the 'thump it, and thump it with everything available' attitude I think could well develop. ITTL. Certainly the CW could see them like that if the third iteration's hostility between the US-Japanese Pacific Alliance and the Commonwealth occurs this go round. The two powers are natural rivals and some kind of friction would not be at all surprising. What form that would take or how intense it would become, no way to judge yet. Though I do know the odds of the hot war which did blow up in the third iteration were around three to one against. But if any friction does end up going as far some kind of significant hostility and sabre rattling, the CW will start work on Operation Matchstick. the unprecedented trans Atlantic amphibious assault on the Panama Canal. Yes incredibly risky, but success would cripple the US navy long term. And Operation Matchstick's chances of success go up significantly if the CW employs chemical weapons in executing it. Will this mean the CW gets nerve gas this time? Down to the roll of the dice. Someone will develop it, who is weighted, the candidates from most to least likely: CW, US, Germany, Italy, France, some outlier such as Sweden or Brazil.
* in truth I just don't view chemical weapons with same horror as many. certainly no worse than horrific than the effects plain old fashioned high explosives can have on the human body. Sorry I just find regarding some devices specifically designed to kill and maim people as ethically okay and others not a little odd. But off my soapbox and back to fun Miss C as I turn it into a box racer.
There are a number of things I really love to throw into Alt histories. Rigid airship is without doubt my biggest vice. If I thought I could get away with i'd have Comes Ferdinandus Adolphus Zeppelinus wondrous aerostatum flying over the Colossum in Rome while gladiators battle to the death to satisfy the jaded appetites of decadent Imperial aristocrats and one of the more disreputable Emperors (Tiberius maybe, Caligula and Nero are fat too overused). Might even give it a try one day. I also have a fondness for Autogyros, Mesoamerican knights mounted on giant prehistoric guinea pigs, Polynesian Shaman with secret knowledge of things man was not meant to know, Flying submarine aircraft carriers (bonus points for whoever knows where that comes from), and many others. However casual use of tac nukes is not one of them sadly. Casual use of chemical Weapons on the other hand I do lean towards, possibly something I should regard as disturbing about myself (see below).
Unlike virtually all other weapons of war, which I regard as no more or less 'special' or 'different' than any other,, I do see nukes as different. Their destructive power is so many orders of magnitude above others and the potential consequence of their use so terrifying, I fail to see how anyone could not. This combined with while my opinion of bureaucrats, civil servants and politicians (I find the lines between the tree rather blurry) is perhaps a little lower than it should be, I believe the overwhelming majority of them are basically sane and do love their children. I think people who would not pause for some significant amount of time and think vary carefully before using or in anyway participating in the use of nuclear weapons are extremely rare, if not vanishingly so, I certainly hope they are. Therefore, presenting any kind of widespread attitude holding nuclear of nuclear weapons are just another weapon is not something normally see as readily believable.
However ITTL there is a factor I don't think is common. It might take some explaining. When I was young (teens and early 20s), i like many in the west was bombarded by the popular view the Soviet military establishment had little regard for human life due to the doctrine they used. Their supposed lack of concern about casualties among civilians or their own troops was most often brought up. But their willingness to use chemical weapons, saturation artillery bombardments, favouring quantity over quality we all also presented as more proof. But as I read about about the Second World War on the Eastern Front, the Soviet's Great Patriotic War, this somehow didn't make sense to me. The Soviet officers who came up with their doctrine were all junior officer during it. It just didn't seem reasonable their experiences in that war would leave them numb to human suffering, a few certainly, trauma can do that, but the vast majority of them? No that didn't seem realistic.
So I read everything I could find on why they followed this doctrine. I even managed to find a few unclassified writings by those who came up with their methods. What I found was Soviet doctrine was in fact motived by the exact opposite of the popular belief. They used those methods to minimise casualties, on both sides to a degree actually. Soviet experience on the Eastern Front was their own casualties were lowest when pursuing a retreating enemy and highest when assaulting a prepared position. So their aim was to move to the first situation as rapidly as possible. Therefore they were willing to press attacks far more vigorously and with far more violence (the don't don't tap it tump it, and keep thumping it with every thing available approach) than many western armies. And furthermore, the longer combat continued, the higher casualties on both sides and among civilians. In fact one comment from a Soviet officer the best way to reduce civilian casualties was to force the enemy to retreat as soon as possible, moving the battle away from the civilians. When I read this it dawned on me, this was all really just common sense.
How is this relevant to my TL? When nukes come along, the officers who formulate doctrine for their use will have been junior officers during the Great War and chaos of revolutions and civil wars which follow it for many years. While I am only going off the Third Iteration, this iteration, while having many differences, has consistently followed a similar path. And many of the differences between the two iterations thus far have increased the pace and intensity of events. The Great War and its aftermath were noticeably longer and more brutal than the OTL. I already know the Great War is going to occur ITTL and even when it will start to within roughly nine months. What indications I have point to it being at least as long and brutal as the previous iteration. In fact there are a fair number of indications it could be even longer and more brutal. Under those circumstance,
Under those circumstances I could definitely see a elements of that Soviet mindset arising, potentially leading somewhat more relaxed attitude to the use of nuclear weapons than the OTL emerging, especially in the early days of their availability, before their full power is properly understood or arsenals have grown to the point where global apocalypse and mutually assured destruction become a possibility. I do know it very likely chemical weapons will be far more widely used than the OTL. Not because of how I view them, because of the 'thump it, and thump it with everything available' attitude I think could well develop. ITTL. Certainly the CW could see them like that if the third iteration's hostility between the US-Japanese Pacific Alliance and the Commonwealth occurs this go round. The two powers are natural rivals and some kind of friction would not be at all surprising. What form that would take or how intense it would become, no way to judge yet. Though I do know the odds of the hot war which did blow up in the third iteration were around three to one against. But if any friction does end up going as far some kind of significant hostility and sabre rattling, the CW will start work on Operation Matchstick. the unprecedented trans Atlantic amphibious assault on the Panama Canal. Yes incredibly risky, but success would cripple the US navy long term. And Operation Matchstick's chances of success go up significantly if the CW employs chemical weapons in executing it. Will this mean the CW gets nerve gas this time? Down to the roll of the dice. Someone will develop it, who is weighted, the candidates from most to least likely: CW, US, Germany, Italy, France, some outlier such as Sweden or Brazil.
* in truth I just don't view chemical weapons with same horror as many. certainly no worse than horrific than the effects plain old fashioned high explosives can have on the human body. Sorry I just find regarding some devices specifically designed to kill and maim people as ethically okay and others not a little odd. But off my soapbox and back to fun Miss C as I turn it into a box racer.
It's a decision with some risk. The Zheng will pull ahead noticeably initially. They are banking on peace with the Zheng holding long enough to for the larger but longer term benefits to take effect. Same strategy they followed in creating the army during the Chinese Civil War interestingly. Of course the Zheng are far from idiots, They will have a strong incentive to attack the Xianfa well before they lose their advantage. How this plays out is highly dependent on the state of relations between the CW and PA. the more toward the extreme ends of either good or bad relations are, the less likely the Zheng are to risk an attack (good increases the likelihood of the PA restraining them, bad the likelihood of the CW putting boots on the ground).. Toward the middle however the odds they might chance it increase. Of course the very act of the Zheng invading the CW's major ally in Asia, massively pushes CW-PA relations toward the bad end lol. As with so much, way to early to do anything beyond vague speculation on what will happen in the 30s and 40s.
Last edited: